Altering search results has a major effect on the voting preferences of undecided voters and could swing a close election, researchers have claimed.

Researchers analysing an Indian election found undecided voters paid far more attention to search rankings than previously thought.

They say search results can alter the outcome by up to 12% in some cases.

Researchers analysing an Indian election found undecided voters paid far more attention to search rankings than previously thought. The new study suggests that biased search rankings can be used to fix the outcome of elections in which the winner is projected to win by a margin up to 2.9%. +2
Researchers analysing an Indian election found undecided voters paid far more attention to search rankings than previously thought. The new study suggests that biased search rankings can be used to fix the outcome of elections in which the winner is projected to win by a margin up to 2.9%.

HOW THEY DID IT
In the new study, participants were randomly assigned to groups in which search rankings favored either Mr Kejriwal, Mr Gandhi, or Mr Modi in the recent Lok Sabha Elections.

Real search rankings and web pages were used, and people were asked to research all the candidates just as they would on Google.

The only difference between the groups was the order in which the search results were displayed.

The new study suggests that biased search rankings can be used to fix the outcome of races in India in which the winner is projected to win by a margin up to 2.9%.

This can be done just by influencing undecided voters who use the internet – a small but important group of voters that is sure to grow in coming years.

Studies show that the higher the rank, the more people trust the result, which is why companies are spending billions now to push their products higher.

Researchers at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in California wanted to see if the effect was similar on political candidates.

RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
Next

There's a hole in the Sun! Nasa reveals video showing...

The face of GAMING revealed: Photographer morphs thousands...
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
In research conducted last year in the US, researchers found that altering search rankings so they were biased in favor of a candidate could push the preferences of undecided voters toward that candidate by 15% or more.

The team carried out a new study in recent weeks with more than 2,000 undecided voters throughout India.

The researchers have shown that votes in India can easily be pushed toward one candidate or another by about 12% - double that amount in some demographic groups - enough to determine the outcomes of many close races.

'This is a very serious matter – a real threat to democracy,' says Dr Robert Epstein, lead researcher in the study.

'If two candidates were both trying to push their rankings higher, they would be competing, and that’s fine.

'But if Google, which has a monopoly on search in India, were to favor one candidate, it could easily put that candidate in office by manipulating search rankings, and no one could counter what they were doing.

Even if without human intervention the company’s search algorithm favored one candidate, thousands of votes would still be driven to that candidate.'

However, Google hit back at the claimed, telling MailOnline: 'Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google's approach to search from the very beginning.

'Our results reflect what's on the web, and we rigorously protect the integrity of our algorithms.

'It would undermine people's trust in our results and company if we were to change course.'

The researchers have shown that votes in India can easily be pushed toward one candidate or another by about 12% by search engine rankings +2
The researchers have shown that votes in India can easily be pushed toward one candidate or another by about 12% by search engine rankings

In the new study, participants were randomly assigned to groups in which search rankings favored either Mr Kejriwal, Mr Gandhi, or Mr Modi.

Real search rankings and web pages were used, and people were asked to research all the
candidates just as they would on Google.

The only difference between the groups was the order in which the search results were displayed.

The new study suggests that biased search rankings can be used to fix the outcome of races in India in which the winner is projected to win by a margin up to 2.9%.

This can be done just by influencing undecided voters who use the internet – a small but important group of voters that is sure to grow in coming years.

HOW GOOGLE RANKS ITS RESULTS
Google says its ranking algorithm uses over 200 signals to give you the most relevant answers to your question - be that links to websites, a photograph, a news story, a video, a book or a direct answer.

'We continue to finesse these algorithms and make over 800 changes a year to ensure the best results,' the firm says.

The average query response time is roughly a quarter of a second - with the average blink of an eye is a tenth of a second.

Examples of these signals include:
• Freshness and quality of content on the webpage
• Synonyms of words in your search query
• Whether the best result is a webpage, images, video, news article, etc.
• The number (and quality) of other websites linking to the particular website
• Spell check

The firm also constantly tweaks its methods, and says it made more than 890 improvements to search quality in 2013.

Overall, over 1,000 person-years have gone into developing the Google search algorithm.

Source: Google

Worldwide, the researchers say, upwards of 25% of national elections are won by margins under 3%.

The study also shows that certain demographic groups are especially vulnerable.

The voting preferences of 19% of women over 35 were shifted in the study, as were the voting preferences of 18% of voters who were unemployed.

'Of particular concern,' says Dr Epstein, 'is the fact that 99% of the people in our study seemed to be unaware that the search rankings they saw were biased.

'That means Google has the power to manipulate elections without anyone suspecting they’re doing so.

Well, sure. Wouldn’t you? The woman is running for the presidency of France. She wants to reverse the tide of immigration in her country, so she must be a racist, and whatever she says or whatever anyone else says in support of her is, automatically, fake news, mindless, evil, and the population must be protected from that infection. This is how free speech works. It’s free unless it could do harm, unless certain minds might be taken in by it, and apparently Facebook is stepping up to the plate. Mark Zuckerberg is long overdue for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Zero Hedge: “The first round of French elections will be held on April 23rd, prompting Facebook to shut down pro Le Pen accounts, which they deem to be ‘fake’.”

“In addition to outright bans, the company [Facebook], in conjunction with French media, are running ‘fact checking’ programs — designed to fight ‘fake news’, heightening their efforts around the elections — which spans from 4/23-5/7.”

France must be purified. Only then can media function.

Immigration, you have to understand, isn’t an issue. There is nothing to debate. Immigration is a fact, wholly beautiful, and anyone who wants to limit it is speaking against love, flowers, and the proposition that the sun rises every morning.

Facebook is providing a public service. Just as Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy, FB is making the news run on time—the real news.

Fake news should be shut down. Free speech only concerns what isn’t fake. Yes, I’m beginning to see the light.

After fake news is purged, then we can have free speech.

Aha. Yes.
Somehow, I must have missed this when I studied the 1st Amendment. James Madison, who wrote it, made this note: “Except for fake news.”

The guiding principle should be: if you’re not sure whether an item or issue or report is fake, don’t talk about it, don’t write about it, don’t express an opinion about it, until the authorities have cleared things up, until they’ve decided whether it’s fake or real.

Mark Zuckerberg is providing us with an easy way to check. If he and his people censor a post, it’s fake. Ignore it. Remain silent.

And if you’re French, don’t vote for Le Pen, unless you want a faker as your president.

Things are basically simple. They really are. If you know how to follow the signs and the warnings and the people in charge.

For example, right now I can sense an errant thought creeping into my mind: a corporation based in the US is colluding with the French government to influence an election in France. But I reject that thought. I denounce it. I urge everyone to denounce it. Pretend I never uttered the thought.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum